Thomas v. Franco et al
Filing
10
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because reasonable jurists would not find the Court's procedural ruling debatable. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 6/8/11. (DMT)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Robert Thurman Thomas,
Petitioner,
10
11
v.
12
James Franco, et al.,
13
Respondents.
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-10-2279-PHX-GMS (ECV)
ORDER
15
16
Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and
17
United States Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”).
18
Docs. 1, 9. The R&R recommends that the Court deny the Petition. Doc. 9 at 6. The
19
Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R
20
and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain
21
review of the R&R. Id. at 6 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72;
22
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)).
23
The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to review
24
the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)
25
(“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the
26
subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de
27
novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”). The
28
Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken. The Court will
1
accept the R&R and deny the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district
2
court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
3
made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge may accept, reject,
4
or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the
5
magistrate judge with instructions.”).
6
IT IS ORDERED:
7
1.
Magistrate Judge Voss’s R&R (Doc. 9) is accepted.
8
2.
Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied.
9
3.
The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.
10
4.
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the event
11
Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because
12
reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v.
13
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
14
DATED this 8th day of June, 2011.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?